-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 366
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[INDY-1992] Adds base classes to support versioning routine #1110
[INDY-1992] Adds base classes to support versioning routine #1110
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Andrey Kononykhin <andkononykhin@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrey Kononykhin <andkononykhin@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrey Kononykhin <andkononykhin@gmail.com>
…-1992-versioning-base
Signed-off-by: Andrey Kononykhin <andkononykhin@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrey Kononykhin <andkononykhin@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrey Kononykhin <andkononykhin@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrey Kononykhin <andkononykhin@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrey Kononykhin <andkononykhin@gmail.com>
|
||
max_length = 20 | ||
legacy_validator = VersionField(components_number=(2, 3,), max_length=max_length) | ||
validator = VersionField(version_cls=VersionTestCls, max_length=max_length) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But legacy validation also uses DigitDotVersion
, so is it intentional that we validate by the same Version Validator?
Should we also parametrize using SemVerReleaseVersion
?
) | ||
|
||
|
||
def test_version_base_abstracts(version_base_required): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What do we test by this test? Why don't we instantiate real instances of Version classes instead of dealing with Abstracts and class internals?
Changes:
packaging==19.0
to support PEP440 (PyPI versioning)